manilaseagull
Used to be Swindonseagull
My housemaid is not Italian..neither is my gardener.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
carol thatcher calls a tennis player a golliwog
- Thread starter Publius Ovidius
- Start date
Gully
Monkey in a seagull suit.
All of which sums it up pretty well for me, just because a word was used commonly in the past does not make it acceptable today, we have moved on...thank goodness!
Carol Thatcher belongs to a part of society where the use of words like she used isn't seen as being particularly offensive, but they are in a minority...fortunate that she wasn't on air, very true, there would probably have been people outside the Beeb wanting to stone her to death...if not actually, then literally.
hahaha, intense late-night debates all about Carol Thatcher on NSC! Is this usual?!
yes
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
coventrygull
the right one
Just a thought
If I call a white person a Northen Monkey is that ok. If they are Black does it become racist?
If I call a white person a Northen Monkey is that ok. If they are Black does it become racist?
They are talking about this on TalkSport at the moment.
Thatcher's Agent has been on the phone - very evasive. She is blaming the BBC for a 'Witch-hunt' against Carol Thatcher.
Thatcher's Agent has been on the phone - very evasive. She is blaming the BBC for a 'Witch-hunt' against Carol Thatcher.
User removed 4
New member
only in the antiseptic , righton guardian reading world you no doubt inhabit.
Personally I dont think Carol Thatcher or indeed Prince Charles/Harry are racists. However, what is evident is that the so called upper classes (ruling classes) still use these words as a matter of course. Its the colonial/Empire mentality thing showing itself within this class.
They get so riled and angry that words that they commonly use are found to be so abhorrent to the rest of us. It probably explains why Carol Thatcher will not be making an apology.
It really does show how out of touch they are with the real world i.e us.
They get so riled and angry that words that they commonly use are found to be so abhorrent to the rest of us. It probably explains why Carol Thatcher will not be making an apology.
It really does show how out of touch they are with the real world i.e us.
Gully "if not actually, then literally."
Doesn't literally mean the same in this context as actually? Just a question.
Doesn't literally mean the same in this context as actually? Just a question.
coventrygull
the right one
It worries me that this was a private conversation. It smacks of stalinism. Welcome to 1984
I know its not real but...
Ingsoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This bit is a bit close to the mark.
Under Ingsoc, society is composed of three classes:
The Inner Party, who make policy, effect decisions, and run the government, they are simply referred to as The Party. They are akin to the brain of the party.
The Outer Party, who work the state jobs and are society's middle class. "Members are allowed no vices other than cigarettes and Victory Gin." The Outer Party also are the most scrutinised, constantly monitored with two-way telescreens and other surveillance technologies. They are akin to the hands of the party.
The Proles, who are the lower class, the rabble whom the Inner Party keeps happy and sedate with beer, gambling, sport, casual sex, and prolefeed ("rubbishy texts"). The proles are the proletariat, Marx's term for the working class. The Proles are 85% of Oceania's populace.
coventrygull
the right one
Didn't Orwell say that hope is with the proles?
To be honest we are not far off that are we.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 71,897
Seems to be a roaring trade in gollywog goods on ebay, judging by the ad at the top of this thread
I think the argument here is that the comment was made in the workplace. The workplace is somewhat unusual - ie the BBC - but a workplace nevertheless.
coventrygull
the right one
I get called a cockney c"%t. A Brighton rent boy. in my workplace. So should I get the lot sacked
Highfields Seagull
Well-known member
It was a private conversation only in that it wasn't broadcast; it was a conversation she was having at work.
To
Governor General, BBC
Re: 'The One Show' row
I am deeply offended by this word. Just because some people were comfortable using it in the past doesn't make it acceptable today. Over the past 24 hours, it's been repeated endlessly on the radio, television, press and internet. I for one would be more than happy never to hear it again.
Can I therefore request that you cease using the word "Thatcher" with immediate effect.
Yrs sincerely etc
Governor General, BBC
Re: 'The One Show' row
I am deeply offended by this word. Just because some people were comfortable using it in the past doesn't make it acceptable today. Over the past 24 hours, it's been repeated endlessly on the radio, television, press and internet. I for one would be more than happy never to hear it again.
Can I therefore request that you cease using the word "Thatcher" with immediate effect.
Yrs sincerely etc
The Cardinal
Bishop of Withdean
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: HARASSMENT In English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421 CA, the Court of Appeal found that Mr English’s actual or perceived sexual orientation was not important in considering whether he was discriminated against or harassed under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations). The incessant homophobic mockery, resulting in an intolerable working environment, was enough to bring Mr English’s treatment within the Regulations.
Mr English was employed by Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd between 1996 and 2005. In November 2005 he lodged a complaint with the employment tribunal claiming harassment under the Regulations. He alleged that over the course of some years, four colleagues subjected him to sexual innuendo, suggesting in obvious terms that he was homosexual on the basis that he had attended boarding school and lived in Brighton. He had to endure repeated name calling and on at least two occasions there had been lurid comments about him in the company magazine. This treatment drove him to leave his job.
The law In the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, regulation 5 provides:
(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) subjects another person (“B”) to harassment where, on grounds of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of:
(i) violating B’s dignity; or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
The Regulations were made in order to implement the 2000 Directive “establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation”.
The employment tribunal found that Mr English was not protected by the Regulations. It was clear to all involved in this case that Mr English’s “tormentors” knew that he was not gay and that he was a happily married man with three teenage children. The employment tribunal therefore concluded that the homophobic banter was no more or less a vehicle for teasing him and he did not fall into any of the categories of harassment under the Regulations being: (a) a person who is homosexual, (b) one who is perceived by his harassers as homosexual, or (c) a person who is harassed because of his failure to follow instructions to discriminate against another on grounds of sexual orientation.
The EAT agreed. It found that the protection afforded by the Regulations is narrower than that provided by the Directive. The Regulations state that harassment is “on the grounds of” sexual orientation, while the Directive prohibits harassment “related to” sexual orientation. The EAT found that the homophobic banter, even though unacceptable, was a vehicle for teasing Mr English and was not based on the perception or assumption that he was gay and so was not harassment on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
Mr English was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal as the decision may have been different if there had been a direct application of the Directive.
The Court of Appeal overturned the EAT’s judgment by a majority decision, and held that the critical factor was that Mr English was repeatedly taunted as being gay and it did not matter whether he was gay or not.
The Court of Appeal believed that Mr English was subjected to incessant mockery that created a degrading and hostile working environment and it did so on the grounds of sexual orientation. The calculated insult to his dignity did not depend at all on his actual sexuality but created an intolerable working environment and this was sufficient to bring his case within the Regulations and the Directive.
In summing up the Court of Appeal commented that “sexual orientation is not an either-or affair”. People may desire to keep their orientation private but still be vulnerable to harassment by people who know or sense what their orientation is. Their judgment was that “it cannot possibly have been the intention, when legislation was introduced to stop sexual harassment in the workplace that such a claimant must declare his or her true sexual orientation in order to establish that the abuse was ‘on the grounds of sexual orientation’”, and for the employment tribunal to ask why the other employees engaged in the harassment is to look for motive or purpose, or cause and effect.
The proper construction of regulation 5(1) leads to the conclusion that there was “harassment … on the grounds of sexual orientation” because the conditions of regulation 5(1) were satisfied, namely that (a) on grounds of sexual orientation (b) the tormentors engaged in unwanted conduct (c) which had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant’s dignity or creating a degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant, and (d) which should reasonably be considered as having that effect.
This case widens the scope of the protection against harassment on grounds of sexual orientation. It means that behaviour only needs to be related to sexual orientation to be classed as harassment – the behaviour does not have to be based on an individual’s actual, perceived or assumed sexual orientation. Significantly, this decision potentially widens the scope of protection against harassment in discrimination legislation relating to race, age and religion/belief, because they contain the same definitions of harassment.
This decision or the extension of protection is not likely to require changes to policies for local authorities who should promote a general culture of respect and tolerance through Dignity at Work and Code of Conduct for Employees policies. These policies should ensure that complaints raised by employees in relation to harassment are investigated thoroughly and handled sensitively and in good time.
Arthur
Well-known member
Why is Gollywoggate any different to Windowlickergate?
Apart from the fact that someone has lost their job?
Apart from the fact that someone has lost their job?
Jambo Seagull
Well-known member
You may be right, but their direct forebears, Dennis Thatcher, Phil the Greek and the Queen Mum (gawd bless 'er) definitely did/do have racist views. Mind you I bet that nice "Sir" Mark Thatcher would never use a word like that.